JACoW is a publisher in Geneva, Switzerland that publishes the proceedings of accelerator conferences held around the world by an international collaboration of editors.
@inproceedings{difrischia:icalepcs2023-tumbcmo09,
author = {S. Di Frischia and V. Alberti and M. Canzari and A. Georgiou and H.R. Ribeiro},
title = {{Front-End Monitor and Control Web Application for Large Telescope Infrastructures: A Comparative Analysis}},
% booktitle = {Proc. ICALEPCS'23},
booktitle = {Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Accel. Large Exp. Phys. Control Syst. (ICALEPCS'23)},
eventdate = {2023-10-09/2023-10-13},
pages = {359--363},
paper = {TUMBCMO09},
language = {english},
keywords = {TANGO, controls, framework, interface, operation},
venue = {Cape Town, South Africa},
series = {International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems},
number = {19},
publisher = {JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland},
month = {02},
year = {2024},
issn = {2226-0358},
isbn = {978-3-95450-238-7},
doi = {10.18429/JACoW-ICALEPCS2023-TUMBCMO09},
url = {https://jacow.org/icalepcs2023/papers/tumbcmo09.pdf},
abstract = {{A robust monitor and control front-end application is a crucial feature for large and scalable radio telescope infrastructures such LOFAR and SKA, whereas the control system is required to manage numerous attribute values at a high update rate, and thus the operators must rely on an affordable user-interface platform which covers the whole range of operations. In this paper two state-of-the-art web applications such Grafana and Taranta are taken into account, developing a comparative analysis between the two software suites. Such a choice is motivated mostly because of their widespread use together with the TANGO Controls Framework, and the necessity to offer a ground of comparison for large projects dealing with the development of a monitor and control GUI which interfaces to TANGO. We explain at first the general architecture of both systems, and then we create a typical use-case where an interactive dashboard is built to monitor and control a hardware device. Then, we set up some comparable metrics to evaluate the pros and cons of both platforms, regarding the technical and operational requirements, fault tolerances, developers and operators efforts, and so on. In conclusion, the comparative analysis and its results are summarized with the aim to offer the stakeholders a basis for future choices. }},
}